|
| Torâh | Haphtârâh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
25.35— And because
éÈîåÌêÀ àÈçÄéêÈ, åÌîÈèÈä éÈãåÉ òÄîÌÈêÀ;
(your brother may become despondently-poor, and his hand may have faltered with you,)
so you shall instill strength in him—âÌÅø or To•shâvꞋ—so he may live with you.
From this pâ•suqꞋ, "Ram•ba"mꞋ ruled that the highest form of charity is to step in with help to prevent a person from becoming poor. This includes offering him a loan or employment, investing in his business, or any other form of assistance that will rescue him from the danger of poverty" (Artscroll "Vayikra," II.436). Artscroll editors continue, "The sense of the verse is that your fellow Jew (or âÌÅø) has begun to lose money, but has not yet become impoverished. It is your responsibility to slow his decline by helping him regain his prosperity. The verse refers to him as àÈçÄéêÈ, a more intimate term than [your companion]; and it stresses twice that you must regard his plight with you—not as something that is unrelated to your own welfare" (ibid.).
 |
| Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët Morëshët Âvot—Yad Nâ•âmi, Ra•a•nanꞋâ(h), Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ |
This pâ•suqꞋ demonstrates that úÌåÉøÈä requires Jews to consider the âÌÅø as àÈçÄéêÈ, not merely as "companion." This was also documented in the yo•khas•inꞋ—the (genealogical) "Tree (or Scroll) of Life"—by the inclusion of âÌÅøÄéí among the ten categories of persons who were registered therein, counted among Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ (Ta•lᵊmudꞋ, Ma•sëkꞋët Qi•dush•inꞋ 69a-b; explanation and details in Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' Live-LinkT (ABNC)
).
This pâ•suqꞋ is also the basis of the Judaic system of interest-free, repay-as-able, âî"ç, the acronym for âÀîÄéìåÌú çÆñÆã, such as the one at Tei•mân•iꞋ Beit-ha-KᵊnësꞋët Mo•rëshꞋët Av•otꞋ, here in Ra•a•nanꞋâ(h), to which we contributed for many years, for poor Jews here in Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, primarily Teimân•imꞋ.
Since, according to this principle articulated by Ram•ba"mꞋ, our charity should aim to prevent our brother from going into debt, how much more Perfectly charitable is é‑‑ä toward Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ? Calculations, today, of áÌÄëÌåÌøÄéí and ma•a•sᵊr•otꞋ must be no less logically consistent with this principle. When we are to strive to prevent our brother from being sucked into debt, are we not, identically, required to prevent our brother from being sucked into debt by exacting unrealistic calculations of ma•a•sᵊr•otꞋ on income one never receives; namely, "income" that is, in practice, debt – income already owned by, and going to, creditors – including taxes that belong to Caesar (see The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) 22.16-22)? Must Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ pay ma•a•sᵊr•otꞋ on "income" that, in practice, already belongs to creditors; "income" that the debtor will never realize? When é‑‑ä requires us to work to prevent our brother being sucked into debt, is He not far more Perfectly charitable than we? Does úÌåÉøÈä not repeatedly command Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ to redeem our brother from debt? Is é‑‑ä not more Perfect than we? The Instructor and Master of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ not more Perfect than His disciples? And, if the clerics who claim to represent Him are harsh in these calculations, then how unlike é‑‑ä and His úÌåÉøÈä they demonstrate themselves to be – and how hypocritical, false and illegitimate they prove themselves to be!
 |
 |
25.45 – îÄáÌÀðÅé äÇúÌåÉùÑÈáÄéí
 |
 Rainbow (Binyamin, Israel) – Only promise of Bᵊrit NoꞋakh |
The context confirms that äÇúÌåÉùÑÈáÄéí, who are from äÇâÌåÉéÄí, refers to the âÌÅø åÀúÌåÉùÑÈá—"resident-alien and inhabitant" (i.e., resident-alien who is an inhabitant)—described in pâ•suqꞋ 47.
The ArtScroll Vayikra (IIIb, p. 442) notes that the âÌÅø åÀúÌåÉùÑÈá is a non-Jew who has undertaken to observe, at least the minimal threshold requirement of the ShëvꞋa mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ Bᵊn•eiꞋ-NoꞋakh, and is, as a result, permitted to reside in Ërëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. In Ta•lᵊmudꞋ (Ma•sëkꞋët Qi•dush•inꞋ 69a-b), the âÌÅø was one of ten categories constituting Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ (see further details and explanation in ABNC Live-LinkT Technology, section "B.C.E. 453," p. 17 or 19). None of these 10 categories were permitted to keep "only" the ShëvꞋa mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ Bᵊn•eiꞋ-NoꞋakh! Rather, the ShëvꞋa mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ Bᵊn•eiꞋ-NoꞋakh was the minimum threshold for qualifying as a âÌÅø – who were required to meet the standards of the community within 12-24 months (during which, of course, the levels of observance varied as they learned).
I was asked by a student in England this past week:
In [ABNC Live-LinkT Technology
god-Fearers? Is it true that 'anyone' (non-Jew) who attended [bât•eiꞋ ha-kᵊnësꞋët] in the 1st-century had made a commitment to convert? If so was [Ya•a•qovꞋ] encouraging this in Acts 15?
These are good questions.
Up through the 1st century, social interaction with gentiles (which did not include âÌÅøÄéí postulant, candidate-convert trainees) was prohibited (EJ 7.410-412):
 |
| Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ |
"It was only during the later Second Temple period that a sharp distinction and a barrier of separation was erected between the Jew and the gentile. The prohibition of marriage, which in the Bible was limited to the seven Canaanite nations (Deut. 7.1-4), was extended, following the reforms of Ezra to include all non-Jews; the acceptance of monotheism was made the distinguishing mark of the Jew (Meg. 13a, Esth. R. 6.2); – Only considerations of humanity, such as relief of their poor, visiting their sick affording them last rites (Git. 61a) and discretion (“one greets a gentile on their festivals for the sake of peace” – Tosef. Av. Zar. 1.3) were reasons for breaking the otherwise impenetrable barrier. As a result, the conception of and the attitude toward the non-Jew from the Talmudic period onward are strikingly different from that during the biblical period."
Clearly, this "impenetrable barrier" proves that there were no "gentiles" – not one – in 1st century C.E. bât•eiꞋ ha-kᵊnësꞋët. A priori, these could only have been âÌÅøÄéí – postulant candidate-convert trainees counted in the yo•khas•inꞋ among Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ – studying, learning and implementing the practice of úÌåÉøÈä. Incidentally, this also clearly exposes the false premise, and consequent ex falso quodlibet, of Greco-Roman, Hellenist Christianity.
 |
| " |
The confusion – that still persists today, even among most historians, rabbis, theologians and scholars (!) – arises out of ignorance that even the earliest extant Church historian, Eusebius, documented that St. Paul the Apostate, the central figure arguing for Hellenist Christianity and who wrote most of the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), was excised – kâ•reitꞋ (Eccl. Hist., III.xxvii.4) for exactly that! For those who know what to look for, it's even documented in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT). A clue is provided in that he is called exclusively by his Hebrew name, ùÑÈàåÌì, up until Acts 13.9. He is next delivered-over by "the brothers" (the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Beit Din under Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ", Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ) to the Khein of é‑‑ä (Acts 15.38) – after which he is called exclusively by a Hellenist Greek name: Paul!!!
Now, let's correct the Hellenized phrase, "god-Fearers," and use, instead, the proper phrase: éÄøÀàÅé ä'. While usually referring to âÌÅøÄéí, the phrase often included Jews. Just as 'All horses are animals but not all animals are horses, so, too, all âÌÅøÄéí were éÄøÀàÅé ä' but not all éÄøÀàÅé ä' were âÌÅøÄéí. A definitive discussion of "god-Fearers," is that of Louis H. Feldman, "The Omnipresence of the god-Fearers," Biblical Archaeology Review (86.09-10, pp. 58ff).
As documented in Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-LinkT (WAN), the earliest Christian historians (Eusebius, et al.)—from the 4th century C.E.—recorded that the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ accepted only Ta•na"khꞋ as "Bible" and only (The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of) Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) as a legitimate account of the life and teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa. Like other Jews, they, and consequently we, never accepted the Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT). Therefore, quotations from the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), including "Acts"—and the Hellenized Greek "Gospel of St. Matthew"—have no authority in discussions with Jews.
Like the Hellenized Greek "Gospel of St. Matthew," "Acts" is a book of the Christian-redacted Διαθηκη Καινη (NT). The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Judaic translation from the earliest extant (unfortunately Hellenized Greek) source mss. is more aptly called îÇòÂáÈø because it describes the transition from the personal, physical, presence and teaching of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa the Mâ•shiꞋakh to reliance upon the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ, acknowledged on the Khag ha-Shâv•u•otꞋ following RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's death.
 |
| Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët built on ruins of Original Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, on Har Tziy•onꞋ in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim. Photo © 1985 by Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu Bën-Dâ•widꞋ |
It is instructive to note in the discussion of this pâ•suqꞋ the confirmation by the Sages that only the âÌÅø—recognized and authorized by the authentic Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Jewish community—was accepted as a resident in Ërëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ (in contrast to foreign occupiers), much less attend Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët! The Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ formulated the earliest extant prototype of the ShëvꞋa mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ Bᵊn•eiꞋ-NoꞋakh, which established the minimum threshold requirement for non-Jews desiring to learn and live by úÌåÉøÈä fully and non-selectively to interface with Jews. This enabled them to attend any Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët, where they would be able to learn úÌåÉøÈä (Ma•a•vârꞋ 15.21).
The ShëvꞋa mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ Bᵊn•eiꞋ-NoꞋakh, then, were the minimum threshhold requirements for a non-Jew to interrelate with the Jewish community and be able to attend a Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët. Bat•eiꞋ ha-KᵊnësꞋët were attended exclusively by Pᵊrush•imꞋ and evolved into today's Orthodox Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët. (The Pᵊrush•imꞋ, likewise, evolved into today's Orthodox Jews.) In the first century C.E., this was the only access for non-Jews with a fervent desire to serve é--ä to pursue the only acceptable goal: learning (and applying as they learn) non-selective úÌåÉøÈä-observance according to the example of Rut.
It will shock some to discover that the list enumerated in Ma•a•vârꞋ 15.20 by Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ", the first Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pâ•qidꞋ and head of the first Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, is the earliest list of such laws "that bears any systematic relationship to the set of religious laws which the Pentateuch makes obligatory upon resident aliens'" ("Noachide Laws," EJ, 12.1190)!!!
In other words, this mi•shᵊpâtꞋ of the Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, recorded in Ma•a•vârꞋ 15, is the earliest record of the ShëvꞋa mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ Bᵊn•eiꞋ-NoꞋakh. The Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ is the earliest documented authority on record regarding Bᵊnei-NoꞋakh!!!
As any student quickly finds out for himself or herself, learning úÌåÉøÈä-observance takes time. Shab•âtꞋ-observance, ka•shᵊr•utꞋ, Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët liturgy and and how to conduct oneself in Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët can each take many months to learn and accomplish, not to mention reading Ta•na"khꞋ, chanting úÌåÉøÈä, and praying in Hebrew from an all-Hebrew si•durꞋ Tei•mân•iꞋ—while understanding what you're praying.
Implementation can only occur after the knowledge has been absorbed. úÌåÉøÈä requires that every person observe all of the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ, non-selectively, to the utmost of their ability. Non-selective úÌåÉøÈä-observance is the definitive and indicative expression of non-selectively loving é--ä to the utmost of one's ability. "By their fruits you shall know them." Sound familiar? It's a simple thing to observe if one is keeping Shab•âtꞋ, eating kâ•sheirꞋ and the like. But no one can reasonably be expected to observe úÌåÉøÈä beyond the utmost of their ability.
During the learning transition, therefore, âÌÅøÄéí, because of their partial knowledge, can only be expected to implement, apply and live by the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ they know. This is understandable, expected, well-documented in Ta•lᵊmudꞋ and other Judaic sources, and acceptable during their transitional learning period—but not beyond. That is exactly where so many—including Jews and even some post-Ta•lᵊmudꞋ Sages—have managed to derail themselves and get off track. (The Sages in Ta•lᵊmudꞋ don't seem to have made this mistake, but their words are misunderstood by some of the more recent Jewish commentators.)
This misunderstanding by the more recent Jewish commentators has contributed directly to today's catastrophic problems of assimilation. It is because of this misunderstanding that the Jewish community has evolved to socializing with the general non-Jewish peoples. Interfacing with non-Jews should be limited exclusively to those non-Jews who have committed to, and are working diligently toward, non-selective úÌåÉøÈä-observance—âÌÅøÄéí. Otherwise, relations with goy•imꞋ should not exceed business, diplomatic and minimal social etiquette (meticulously exclusive of their religious practices).
Socializing with non-Jews who have no interest whatsoever in úÌåÉøÈä—and are, in fact, often rabidly misojudaic—has undeniably resulted in today's assimilation of epidemic proportions. This is further corroborated by the direct ratio between assimilation and the extent of socializing with such non-Jews. Respecting the decision of the 1st-century Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, representing RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa the Mâ•shiꞋakh, would go a long way toward remedying assimilation.
As documented in our books, there is overwhelming evidence, consistent throughout the Judaic literature of that early period (e.g., see the numerous citations in the Feldman article mentioned earlier), that âÌÅøÄéí were expected to progress to non-selective úÌåÉøÈä-observance. In those early times, partial úÌåÉøÈä-observance—or the ShëvꞋa mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ Bᵊn•eiꞋ-NoꞋakh per se—were nothing more than the minimal requirements to start, never an acceptable goal.
 |
 Circumcision instruments |
Thus, the ShëvꞋa mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ Bᵊn•eiꞋ-NoꞋakh were never the final, satisfactory or acceptable end goal. Rather, undertaking the ShëvꞋa mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ Bᵊn•eiꞋ-NoꞋakh served only as the minimum acceptable threshold to qualify the candidate to permit the candidate through the "impenetrable barrier" (see comments in 5760) to interface with úÌåÉøÈä teachers and begin the journey toward non-selective úÌåÉøÈä-observance – then circumcision (for men only, and with the same rare medical exceptions) – and conversion.
So, this student from England is correct that in Ma•a•vârꞋ 15, Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ", the first Pâ•qidꞋ ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ and head of the first Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, explicitly set the minimum threshold requirement for accepting a postulant. While it isn't permitted to require circumcision (implying actual conversion) for the postulant candidate—since not even all Jews are circumcised (exceptions being rare medical problems)—the postulant must meet the minimal standards to be accepted in a Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët where úÌåÉøÈä is taught every Shab•âtꞋ (Ma•a•vârꞋ 15.21), where (s)he may then learn, and apply, the rest of úÌåÉøÈä.
Without this access to the Jewish community and Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët—where the úÌåÉøÈä is taught every Shab•âtꞋ—there cannot be even a start on the journey. (Why Christians have failed for millennia to notice this implication of "Acts" 15.21, which is otherwise a non-sensical and irrelevant part of a sentence, can only be explained by unshakeable misojudaic blinders.)
Quoting "Acts" 15.24 (obviously referring back to 15.5-6), many Christians understand Ya•a•qovꞋ's mi•shᵊpâtꞋ as a rebuttal to "Judaizers." The reason is easily seen in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT): "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, 'Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law'; to whom we gave no such mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ."
It's essential to understand Trans. 15.5. What you should notice is that 15.5 refers to requiring circumcision (implying conversion) as a prerequisite to being included in the bᵊrit (between Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ and é--ä) even in the provisional learning status!!! Indeed, the Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ have never suggested such a thing! We have always maintained exactly the opposite! This passage, however, doesn't address the desirability of circumcision and conversion for one who has entered, or is entering, this bᵊrit as a convert—despite the impression one gets from the misleading, Christian-redacted versions.
Trans. 15.5 reads: "saying, 'δει to circumcise them and to convey to them to keep the úÌåÉøÈä of Mosh•ëhꞋ.' " The question is whether circumcision and conversion may be required of postulants in contrast with conversion. Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" and the Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ decided in the negative.
Jumping to the conclusion that circumcision or conversion is somehow condemned in this passage is logically invalid and ludicrous. There is no logical justification for inferring from this that, contrary to all of the beliefs and practices of these pre-135 C.E. Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, Judaism somehow suddenly and inexplicably changed; making circumcision or conversion undesirable. That's strictly post-135 C.E. Christian Displacement Theology with its resulting misojudaism.
There are postulants who fervantly desire to become úÌåÉøÈä-observant, but their family situation precludes them from converting. The most frequent example is a postulant who has a spouse uninterested (if not outright opposed to) úÌåÉøÈä-observance. Should this postulant be excluded? Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" decided in the negative. Non-selective úÌåÉøÈä-observance to one's utmost—but not beyond, for those who cannot convert by undergoing circumcision, also pleases é--ä—and what the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, and the rest of Judaism, must champion.
Notes to Ma•a•vârꞋ 15 (contained in an appendix to ABNC Live-LinkT Technology) demonstrate how much the Christian clergy has kept ordinary Christians in the dark. The phrase in red above, taken from the Textus Receptus of 1624 C.E. (the product of the 1611 C.E. KJ/V NT!) based on the Pᵊshitᵊta and subsequent mss., is absent in the earliest source mss.: א, β, the earliest extant complete codices, or P-45 (3rd-century C.E.), the only earlier source witness for this verse.
 |
 Codices scribe |
In other words, the phrase in red (6 paragraphs earlier) isn't found in any of the earliest source mss.!!! It was introduced later by Christian redaction—a key misojudaic perversion—by post-135 C.E. gentile Roman Hellenists who were the original, rabidly misojudaic, 'Church Fathers,' developing their Christian – Hellenist mythology – Displacement Theology. This crucial redaction was introduced in the 4th-5th century C.E. source texts, after Christian redactors had already widened the question, from whether circumcision and full conversion was necessary (cf. note to Ma•a•vârꞋ 15.29.1) to whether úÌåÉøÈä-observance was necessary or even acceptable—a question impossible to conceive among any sect of 1st-century Judaism, including the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ. Indeed, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ remained úÌåÉøÈä-observant until they were extirpated by the church in 333 C.E.—specifically because they refused to abandon úÌåÉøÈä-observance when demanded by the Hellenist Roman gentile Christian Church!
Note also that, immediately after this letter from Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" and the Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, what was the very next thing "Paul" did? He had Timothy circumcised and properly converted ("Acts" 16.3)!!! Why have Christians never noticed such conspicuous and seemingly hypocritical contradictions?
Clearly, this mi•shᵊpâtꞋ handed down by Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" and the Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ cannot be construed to mean that circumcision or conversion isn't required (much less undesirable). On the contrary, for those who can qualify before an Orthodox rabbi, conversion is a mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ that the âÌÅø should do his or her utmost to achieve.
Consequently, the focus of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ qi•ruvꞋ is on getting out of Displacement Theology and undertaking non-selective úÌåÉøÈä-observance, not conversions. This is the reason that we have left conversions to Orthodox rabbis (though recent usurpation of the Ra•bân•utꞋ by Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•imꞋ may persuade us to revisit this decision). We don't presently involve ourselves in circumcisions or conversions. Like our 1st-century predecessors, however, while we don't require circumcision or conversion for âÌÅøÄéí, we require our âÌÅøÄéí who qualify to pursue conversion if they can find a sympathetic Orthodox rabbi. (There are many reasons for this, most particularly so that their young children may be raised in a úÌåÉøÈä community and then, in future, marry into the úÌåÉøÈä-observant community.)
The picture of the âÌÅø that then emerges is particularly engaging since, in pâ•suqꞋ 46, úÌåÉøÈä instructs:
25.46 – ìÀòÉìÈí áÌÈäÆí úÌÇòÂáÉãåÌ;
Speaking of situations which would justify freeing a slave, Ta•lᵊmudꞋ argues concerning a non-Jewish slave: if a tenth man is needed for a min•yânꞋ, a non-Jewish slave may be freed, thereby making him eligible to be counted (Bᵊrâkhot 47b, see To•sëphꞋtâ.; Artscroll Vayikra IIIb, p. 441). Another, indirect, implication is that one may not impose a religious rite upon a person involuntarily (i.e., upon a servant or employee, who is not free to choose).
If a free non-Jew who was formerly a slave may be counted toward a min•yânꞋ, then certainly a âÌÅø, who was one of the ten classes comprising Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, was counted! Therefore, the legitimate âÌÅø (recognized by a Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Beit-Din) should be counted for a min•yânꞋ today. For the moment, this decision, however, rests with your local Orthodox rabbi.
This raises a question that Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Yᵊhud•imꞋ must eventually reassess: counting âÌÅøÄéí for a min•yânꞋ.
|
|
25.10-23— The pᵊsuq•imꞋ setting forth the éåÉáÅì are some of the most timely and crucial of all passages in Ta•na"khꞋ—today, as will quickly become apparent.
25.14 – åÀëÄé-úÄîÀëÌÀøåÌ îÄîÀëÌÈø ìÇòÂîÄéúÆêÈ
Notice that the only sale of land (the reader will soon to discover that even this is a limited lease, not a sale) could be valid under Biblical law—this most ancient legal document determining ownership and sovereignty of this land—was to "your kinsman," i.e. a fellow Jew. The most ancient authenticated document describing the national laws constraining the framework of sovereignty and sale of this land make it impossible for any non-Jew to have any claim whatsoever!!!
25.15 – áÌÀîÄñÀôÌÇø ùÑÈðÄéí
 |
éåÉáÅì Ram |
"The laws of the éåÉáÅì and the admonition (àÇì-úÌåÉðåÌ) come together in this regulation of real estate practice. Since fields revert to their original owners in the éåÉáÅì Year, the "buyer" of a field has actually purchased not the land but the number of crops he expects it will produce before the land is returned to the owner in the éåÉáÅì. Consequently, [the transaction is a lease, and] the price must be based on that calculation, and if the seller sets a price based on the land value—as if the buyer will remain in possession permanently—he is violating the previous verse's admonition (àÇì-úÌåÉðåÌ). (RashꞋ"i, Sifra)." (Artscroll Vayikra IIIb.427f).
Thus, this land could only be leased, never sold under any conditions. The Ta•na"khꞋ is probably the oldest real estate deed in the world. Any subsequent claims to the land contradicting this earliest extant deed cannot be legal!
25.23-34— The laws governing redemption of the land by close relatives is an extension "of the principle that the land, which was apportioned among the families of Israel, is [Ël•oh•imꞋ's], and cannot be sold in perpetuity." (Artscroll Vayikra IIIb.432).
Leasing out one's land was a first sign of fiscal impoverishment—being poor, bankruptcy. Only selling oneself as a slave, which often followed such a financial setback, was worse. Relatives were not to permitted to allow this impoverishment of their relative to continue to the éåÉáÅì if there were any possible way for them to redeem the land from the lessor at the earliest possible moment. Relatives were commanded to assist their relative back on his financial feet again so that he could earn his bread in dignity.
25.35-38—It's clear how this theme blends in with relatives rescuing the poor from their poverty. On the other hand, one must not be conned when trying to help others. Being conned is the simple and irresponsible squandering of one's resources—and those in genuine need of help still won't get it.
Commenting on the phrase "åÀäÆçÆæÇ÷ÀúÌÈ áÌåÉ" in 25.35, "Ram•ba"mꞋ rules that the highest form of charity is to step in with help to prevent a person from becoming poor. This includes offering him a loan or employment, investing in his business, or any other form of assistance that will rescue him from the danger of poverty. The basis for this principle is the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ in our passage: you shall instill strength in him (hil. Matanos Aniyim 10.7)." (Artscroll Vayikra IIIb.436).
25.35— âÌÅø åÀúÌåÉùÑÈá: we regularly use the phrase âÌÅø úÌåÉùÑÈá, but how should we reconcile the addition of the prefix åÀ? Relying on "úÌåÉùÑÈá," we've translated âÌÅø úÌåÉùÑÈá as "settled resident-alien," i.e. a settled-inhabitant who is a resident-alien. âÌÅø úÌåÉùÑÈá becomes "resident-alien [who is a] settler-inhabitant" and âÌÅø åÀúÌåÉùÑÈá becomes "resident-alien (implying settler-inhabitant) and [explicitly] settler-inhabitant."
|
|
25.18— stipulates:
"åÇòÂùÒÄéúÆí àÆú-çË÷ÌÉúÇé, åÀàÆú-îÄùÑÀôÌÈèÇé úÌÄùÑÀîÀøåÌ åÇòÂùÒÄéúÆí àÉúÈí;"
25.23 – "ëÌÄé-âÅøÄéí åÀúåÉùÑÈáÄéí, àÇúÌÆí òÄîÌÈãÄé:"
The plural forms in 25.23 – of âÌÅø and úÌåÉùÑÈá, as well as the inclusive åÀ (in åÀúåÉùÑÈáÄéí) and the collective àÇúÌÆí – all describe how é‑‑ä views Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ living in His land. These plural forms directly parallel their singular counterparts in 25.35: "àÈçÄéêÈ"—implying the collective, including âÌÅø åÀúÌåÉùÑÈá— "may become impoverished, you shall instill strength áÌåÉ – åÈçÇé with you."
âÌÅø åÀúÌåÉùÑÈá is not identical to âÌÅø úÌåÉùÑÈá—i.e. a non-Jew, learning úÌåÉøÈä (and therefore in progressing levels of observance)—residing within the Jewish community. This pâ•suqꞋ describes both types of âÌÅø—whether âÌÅø úÌåÉùÑÈá or âÌÅø öã÷—and úÌåÉùÑÈá, here referring to the "born-Jew", as "àÈçÄéêÈ."
In pâ•suqꞋ 25.47 the same phrase is used: "If the means [lit. hand] of a âÌÅø åÀúÌåÉùÑÈá with you shall achieve'"
The shared theme threading through all three of these is that they each speak of one who is âÌÅø åÀúÌåÉùÑÈá – a âÌÅø and úÌåÉùÑÈá, i.e., a âÌÅø who is a úÌåÉùÑÈá. This is how the phrase should be understood in each of these cases. This phrase includes both types of âÌÅø (toshâv and tzëdꞋëq); both types of âÌÅø are residents.
The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ definition is perfectly grounded in Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ as expressed by the Sages and even RashꞋ"i: "As the Sages express it,
àÅéæÆäåÌ úÌåÉùÑÈá? ëÌÈì ùÑÆ÷ÌÄáÌÅì òÈìÈéå ùÑÆìÌÉà ìÇòÂáåÉã òÂáåÉãÈä æÈøÈä, åÀàåÉëÅì ðÀáÅìåÉú
(Who is a úÌåÉùÑÈá? Anyone who accepts upon himself not to worship idols, but who is [still] eating non-kâ•sheirꞋ meat – RashꞋ"i, Si•phᵊr•âhꞋ) – Artscroll, Vayikra IIIb.437
It is understood in this statement that "accepting upon himself' means voluntarily before a Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Beit-Din. The statement further intimates that âÌÅø úÌåÉùÑÈá is a temporary transitional state.
Commenting on 25.41, äåÌà åÌáÈðÈéå, Artscroll notes a law of slavery that impinges on the issue of "Who is a Jew?," reconfirming the matriarchal definition. "Under no circumstances do the Jewish children of a Jewish slave ever belong to his master; even those born to his Jewish wife during his period of servitude are free. On the other hand, those who are born to the non-Jewish slavewoman with whom he lives are halakhically not his; they remain the non-Jewish slaves of the master." (Vayikra IIIb.439-40).
 166x36.png "10 (binary byte)"){kind=small}
Can âÌÅøÄéí be counted for a min•yânꞋ? Unless and until you develop a min•yânꞋ , the practical aspect of this decision rests with your local Tei•mân•iꞋ (or other moderate) Orthodox rav. However, Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ certainly does: "If a tenth man is needed for a min•yânꞋ, a non-Jewish slave may be freed, thereby making him eligible to be counted (Ma•sëkꞋët Bᵊrâkh•ōtꞋ 47b, see To•sëphꞋtâ)" (Artscroll, Vayikra IIIb.441). Moreover, Ta•lᵊmudꞋ documents (Ma•sëkꞋët Qi•dush•inꞋ 69a-b, detailed explanation in ABNC Live-LinkT Technology), the yo•khas•inꞋ included, the âÌÅø among 10 categories "counted" in Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ.
|
|
This pâ•râsh•âhꞋ begins
åÇéÀãÇáÌÅø é--ä àÆì-îÉùÑÆä áÌÀäÇø
 |
 Har Sin•aiꞋ (Har Kar•komꞋ; "Saffron / Senna – Mountain," in the Israeli NëgꞋëv). Note cleft in rock at right of summit. There were 2-3 mountains in the Sin•aiꞋ that were traditionally regarded as "Holy Mountains" by all of the peoples – and called "Sinai Mountain." This is the "Har Sin•aiꞋ". |
If Sin•aiꞋ has a translation, it would probably mean "my Chinese." The masc. sing. adj. for Chinese is ñÄéðÄé. Incorporating the 1st pers. m.p. suffix, yielding ñÄéðÇé (only evident in the vowelization), indicates the connective "my" appropriate for a m.p.n. (i.e., "Chinese" being plural). Klein's offers no etymology for this term.
25.1-7— describes the ùÑÀîÄèÌÈä.
25.2 – åÀùÑÈáÀúÈä äÈàÈøÆõ, ùÑÇáÌÈú ìÇé--ä
In Israel, a strike (work-stoppage) is a ùÑÀáÄéúÈä, from the same shorꞋësh, the verb ùÑÈáÇú, as the nouns ùÑÇáÌÈú and ùÑÀáÄéúÈä. These are all cognates.
In 25.4, this seventh year is described as a ùÑÇáÌÇú ùÑÉÇáÌÈúåÉï. The repetition of the same word form, forming a doublet, denotes emphasis, i.e. absolutely, utterly.
The more popular term for the seventh year, ùÑÀîÄèÌÈä, derives from Shᵊm•otꞋ 23.11.
Many tal•mid•imꞋ will recall that this past year, 5754, was a ùÑÀîÄèÌÈä year. To determine the ùÑÀîÄèÌÈä year, simply divide the year (on the Judaic calendar, of course) by 7. If the quotient comes out even, it's ùÑÀîÄèÌÈä year. Otherwise, the remainder indicates which year it is relative to the next ùÑÀîÄèÌÈä year. Mathematicians call this "mod 7" (modulo 7).
Determining the ùÑÀîÄèÌÈä years is also important because the proper use of ma•asᵊr•otꞋ varies based on the year relative to ùÑÀîÄèÌÈä (cf. NHM note 23.23.2).
25.8— begins a description of a counting of years paralleling the counting of the OꞋmër for Shâv•u•otꞋ. The equivalent on the yearly cycle corresponding to Shâv•u•otꞋ relative to years is the éåÉáÅì. On Yom Ki•purꞋ of the éåÉáÅì year a éåÉáÅì ("clarion call") is sounded on the sho•phârꞋ, for which the éåÉáÅì year has taken the name, heralding freedom (R. Dovid Marchant, Understanding Shmittoh, Feldheim, p. 20).
The éåÉáÅì year cannot be celebrated when Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ is exiled from hâ-ÂꞋrëtz, and was perhaps discontinued with the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ hâ-Rishon and consequent exile. éåÉáÅì wasn't observed during the time of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Sheini. With its difficult questions concerning land use, real estate laws and the leasing, rental and sale of land, éåÉáÅì won't likely be observed again until sometime during the era of the Mâ•shiꞋakh.
There are two major schools of Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ concerning the calculation of éåÉáÅì. The view of the Rab•ân•ânꞋ is that the calculation is the same as Shâv•u•otꞋ, except in years instead of days—i.e., 50-year cycles (Marchant, p. 49).
Rav Yᵊhud•âhꞋ (Bar- Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ, d. 299 C.E.) held that the 50th year counted from the previous éåÉáÅì coincided with the 1st year of the next 7-year cycle, both being the same year. This would mean that there were 49 year cycles for calculating éåÉáÅì (see "Sabbatical Year and Jubilee," EJ, 14.580ff).
5754 was the second ùÑÀîÄèÌÈä year of a cycle according to the Rab•ân•imꞋ. This is based on the count, since the destruction of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Sheini, of the ùÑÀîÄèÌÈä consisting solely of the 7-year cycles. For further information, see Marchant. The next candidate year for éåÉáÅì would then seem to be 5789 (2029 C.E.).
|
|
25.55— There is a tendency for persons in advanced civilizations, having free will, to think of themselves as freemen, not slaves. I suggest, however, that the Jew and the âÌÅø aren't freemen, but slaves. What says this verse? "For to Me the children of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ are òÂáÈãÄéí – the Biblical term for slaves. They are òÂáÈãÇé whom I brought forth out of the land of Mi•tzᵊr•ayꞋim. I am é--ä your Ël•oh•imꞋ."
What kind of slave-Master relationship does Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ have with the Creator? Though we can be in the non-enslaved employ of earthly masters (employers) on a temporary basis, the year of redemption (Yo•veilꞋ or "Clarion") ensured that the slaves of é--ä, while they might fall into temporary debt and limited indenture, couldn't be owned by another. We serve only one Master. RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa argued that voluntary enslavement to an earthly master for material security contradicted this principle of Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ and, therefore, is prohibited. It is necessary to work. But we must be careful to keep our priorities in order.
 |
26.2 — … àÆú-ùÑÇáÌÀúÉúÇé úÌÄùÑÀîÉøåÌ. The pres. m.s. of this verb, ùÑåÉîÅø, is popularly used to define dât•imꞋ Jews: "ùÑåÉîÅø ùÑÇáÌÈú".
Though there is no explicit mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ in Tor•âhꞋ shë-bi•khᵊtâvꞋ to light neir•otꞋ Shab•âtꞋ, this passage is an explicit mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ to be ùÑåÉîÅø ùÑÇáÌÈú
The traditional halakhic bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ, as found in Orthodox sidur•imꞋ, is åÀöÄåÌÈðåÌ ìÀäÇãÀìÄé÷ ðÅø ùÑÆì-ùÑÇáÌÈú. For several years, rather than recite the traditional bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ when kindling the Shab•âtꞋ candles (for which there is no explicit mitz•wâhꞋ without "adding to Tor•âhꞋ " – in contravention of Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.1, et al.), the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ recited, instead, the bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ: åÀöÄåÌÈðåÌ ìÄùÑÀîåÉø àÆú-äÇùÑÇáÌÈú in keeping with this passage.
However, the antiquity of the traditional bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ is uncertain and may date back to bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 15.32-33. In any case of doubt, Tei•mân•iꞋ (or, where that is indeterminate, moderate) Orthodox Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ (what exists) is presumed correct until shown incorrect (i.e., logical proof of divergence is shown). Therefore, Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ have accepted, and now recite, the traditional Teimân•imꞋ bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ (åÀöÄåÌÈðåÌ ìÀäÇãÀìÄé÷ ðÅø ùÑÆì-ùÑÇáÌÈú).
|
|
16.19: "…to You shall come the âÌåÉéÄí from the ends of the earth, and they shall say: 'It was, àÇêÀ-ùÑÆ÷Æø our fathers inherited, a äÆáÆì that isn't îåÉòÄéì.' "
A long list of intractable contradictions, inherent in Christianity, is listed in WAN Live-LinkT Technology. No scholar or seminarian, indeed no one, has been able to mount any credible disputation to any of these contradictions for the nearly 25 years that this challenge has been issued. Logic dictates the realization that contradictions mean something within the religion is a ùÑÆ÷Æø—a ùÑÆ÷Æø that Christians have inherited from their fathers going back to when the ùÑÆ÷Æø was first implemented in 135 C.E. (see WAN Live-LinkT Technology). Moreover, Christianity is one of the main pillars upon which Islam—a second order Displacement Theology—was built, which it accepts, and from which (e.g., the Christian precedent of supersession) Islam dangles.
Many who recognize the conundrum that 'one either trusts in the Word of é--ä or one is trusting in man' cannot read the first Word of Ta•na"khꞋ! When they rely on translators, in which are they trusting? When they spout these translations, which are they promoting? Which is their authority? Which do they serve? When they ignore or reject documented facts of the very real Creator and His úÌåÉøÈä to follow their pastor, they follow their pastor, not the Creator. Their faith – it shockingly and ironically turns out – is in man.
Every contra-úÌåÉøÈä (and pseudo-úÌåÉøÈä) religion is indeed a äÆáÆì that lacks îåÉòÄéì. The only question is: when will the goy•imꞋ recognize this and complete this prophecy?
Get a real—Hebrew—Bible, with a translation into your language to help beginners and learn how to read the Bible (instead of relying on any translation). For English-speakers, I recommend Artscroll Publishers' Stone Edition. Our authorized ma•dᵊrikh•imꞋ (check with us to avoid being duped by phonies) can help you in your journey and there are many Hebrew courses available. Complete our survey (in our 'Welcome' Center, in the navigation panel at left), then begin learning what you need to know about RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa by getting started today in our Khav•rutꞋâ Syllabus (click the link in the appropriate Ministry.
|
|
Interestingly, the Haphtâr•âhꞋ passage is preceded by pᵊsuq•imꞋ (Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 16.16-18) that state that fishers of men (q.v. also NHM 4.18-19) would be followed by hunters of men. Perhaps the latter characterizes the Sho•âhꞋ? (If so, the latter then implies that the former has already gone before' implying that the 'fishers of men' was satisfied in NHM 4.18-19.)
|
|
Have Christians & Muslims failed to study the history of their religion and misunderstood the "New Covenant"? What does YirmᵊyâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ say about Christianity, Islam and all other religions of the goy•imꞋ?
"'ä my Strength, my Stronghold, and my Escape in the Day of the Strait; to You the goy•imꞋ shall come from the edges of the land saying, What a lie our fathers inherited! It's a äÆáÆì, and there is no îåÉòÄéì in it!" (Haphtâr•âhꞋ, YirmᵊyâhꞋu 16.19).
| úÌåÉøÈä | Translation | Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM |
NHM |
||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
|
|
Which is more important to the Ël•oh•imꞋ of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, putting on tᵊphil•inꞋ or caring for the homeless, the poor and the sick? Who does úÌåÉøÈä teach is better, a prominent Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Jewish teacher of Tor•âhꞋ ? Or an "anti-missionary" who wears a medieval costume, black hat and tᵊphil•inꞋ every day and slanders those he hates or a gentile Christian like Oprah who actively helps people? Whether Jew or Christian or Muslim, too many stand on sanctimony and by "their own," regardless of objective standards.
Despite their protestations, Christianity and Islam are centered on faith in a man (or, in the former case, a man-god). The original mother religion (úÌåÉøÈä, or Judaism), by contrast, centers on one's practice of úÌåÉøÈä in everyday life. On balance, therefore, one should expect that those oriented to úÌåÉøÈä would more often produce good works. But how should one view Jews—even some Orthodox rabbis—who are sanctimonious slanderers and hate-mongers versus gentiles who undeniably produce good works?
I'm not speaking of intentions here. úÌåÉøÈä specifies works, the end results, not intentions. Whoever believes that a serial killer, child molester, rapist or a Saddam or Usama (or Hitler, for that matter) gets up in the morning, looks in the mirror and thinks of himself as a monster is deceiving himself. In their view, their intentions were justified, often they see themselves as noble. Intentions are important. In Hebrew, the term is kavân•âhꞋ. But the acid test is the results, the works, the fruits. Good intentions cannot compensate for evil works.
Like other first-century religious Jews, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa called the practice of úÌåÉøÈä in one's everyday life that person's "good fruits" because the practice of úÌåÉøÈä results in good works (see, inter alia, NHM 7.2). Conversely, those who aren't producing good works (including those just not producing any works at all) aren't practicing úÌåÉøÈä. Further, those who produce injurious, destructive and hateful works are practicing the opposite of úÌåÉøÈä—regardless of whether they claim to be keeping úÌåÉøÈä. When those who practice the opposite of úÌåÉøÈä profess to be an Orthodox Jew it constructively implies that úÌåÉøÈä—and, therefore, é--äé--ä—teach such injury, destruction and hate. That is khi•lulꞋ é--ä.
In his lifetime, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa could see that authentic úÌåÉøÈä teachings were being undermined, corrupted by false priests, widely called "Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa," lacking even genealogical qualifications, who had purchased their office from the Romans and, under Roman sponsorship, controlled the Temple (see Khanukah). Referring to these pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ "Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa," RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa declared, "Now the axe is being laid to the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that is not producing good fruit is being cut out and thrown into the fire" (<NHM 3.1, see also NHM 12.3ff & 13.2, 21.5). He that has ears to hear…
The most prominent fruit is tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ. The evolution of this term from "justness" to "charity" somehow usually skips over the main theme: being "just" in all of your life-practice implies "good works." When RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa immersed himself for tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, though he had done nothing he knew of that required tᵊshuv•âhꞋ (remember the principle of the unknown trespass), he clarified that "it distinguishes us to fulfill all tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ—i.e. justness = good works—thusly (NHM 3.2). He later corroborated this theme, declaring, "Yo•khân•ânꞋ 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ came to you in the Way of tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ and you did not trust [that or him]" (NHM 21.3).
Confirming his earlier judgment that "every tree that is not producing good fruit is being cut out and thrown into the fire," •marꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, "Unless your tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ is over and above that of the So•phᵊr•imꞋ (úÌåÉøÈä scribes) and [Boethusian 'Herodian'] Rabbinic-Pᵊrush•imꞋ, there is no way you will enter the Realm of the heavens" (5.20). Even beyond that, •marꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, that the sanctimonious, who "do their tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ in the streets and in the shᵊvaq•imꞋ (markets)" to be extolled by people, have all of the reward they're going to get. They "will have no payment from your Father who is in the heavens." (NHM 6.1-2).
RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's dᵊrâshꞋ on tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ inspired, "A•shᵊr•eiꞋhëm ("may they be happy") who hunger and thirst after tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ, for they shall be filled of it" (NHM 5.1). RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa gives this the absolute top priority, instructing, "Request first the Realm and His tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ and all [of life's necessities needed to serve é--ä] shall be given to you" (NHM 6.3).
Fourth-century Roman-Hellenist Christians, the earliest extant 'Church Fathers,' perverted RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's teachings, tearing them from their original context within úÌåÉøÈä, so that millions of Christians and Muslims have, for millennia, wrongly generalized his teachings as repudiating and rejecting "Jews." However, his authentic original teaching was to repudiate and reject those who are sanctimonious. The same holds true today. The sanctimonious have no place in hâ-ol•âmꞋ ha-baꞋ. When the tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ of "turncoat-tax-gougers and the licentious" (NHM 21.31) exceeds that of sanctimonious Jews, those "turncoat-tax-gougers and the licentious," with good works, shall precede sanctimonious Jews lacking good works in the Realm of the heavens—whether prominent Ultra-Orthodox rabbis or Jewish slanderers calling themselves "anti-missionaries." é--ä is the Ël•oh•imꞋ of Israel, but He is also Singularity-Creator of the rest of the universe; Who created all men in His image, Who loves all of them and Who desires all of them to obey His Instruction Manual for life. That, of course, includes all of the applicable mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ.
So, Oprah—you're theology is all wrong but, otherwise, go girl!
|
|
There are other things that are generalized in deceptive things. According to them, [included are] hidden things of the heart that the speaker could cause persons to stray, or to say that his ka•wân•âhꞋ isn't to slight his companion or his opinion, to slight him, or to break his heart. Every hidden thing of the heart of a man, if it isn't revealed to a Bën-âdâm, to warn him or punish him concerning it, it is said about him, "And you shall revere your Ël•oh•imꞋ" (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 25.17)'
It has also been memorized in Ma•sëkꞋët Yom•âꞋ, chapter 'came to him a Ko•heinꞋ ha-Ja•dolꞋ' (71b): Rab•ân•ânꞋ have memorized: The tale of one Ko•heinꞋ ha-Ja•dolꞋ, who left the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, the whole world [i.e. everyone else] followed after him. Since Shᵊmayâh and Avtalyon saw this, they left their own [opinion] and followed after him. Finally [however, reverting to their own opinion], Shᵊmayâh and Avtalyon were coming to take leave from him. They told him: May the son of A•har•onꞋ arrive in peace. The [Ko•heinꞋ ha-Ja•dolꞋ who had left the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ] said to them: May the sons of the am•imꞋ [i.e. calling Shᵊmayâh and Avtalyon gentiles] arrive in peace. They said to him: May the sons of am•imꞋ who act as A•har•onꞋ [i.e. graciously] arrive in peace, but may the son of A•har•onꞋ who does not act as A•har•onꞋ not arrive in peace!
We also learned from here how great the deception of words is, that he told them in a disgraceful manner, for they were bᵊnei-geir•imꞋ, and truly, for this their respect was great, that they came to shelter under the wings of Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ and they finished úÌåÉøÈä before many, as is memorized in Ma•sëkꞋët Git•inꞋ, chapter 'The Damaged' (57b), and in chapter 'part' (Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion 96b): it has been memorized: Na•amân, was a Geir Toshâv; Nᵊvuzaradân was a Geir tzëdꞋëq; from the sons of Hâmân, they taught úÌåÉøÈä to many in Bᵊnei Bᵊraq; and from the sons of Sisrâ, they taught úÌåÉøÈä in Yᵊrushâlayim; from the sons of sons of Sankheiriv, they taught úÌåÉøÈä to many and who are they? Shᵊmayâh and Avtalyon!
|
|
|